Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Tatsuya Nagai, Naoki Inoshima, Hiroki Matsui, Norihiko Kubota, Yoshihiro Funaki, Ayumu Otsuki, Hiroyuki Ito, Kei Nakashima
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Tatsuya Nagai, Naoki Inoshima, Hiroki Matsui, Norihiko Kubota, Yoshihiro Funaki, Ayumu Otsuki, Hiroyuki Ito, Kei Nakashima","doi":"10.1186/s13223-026-01055-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Omalizumab and mepolizumab are effective biologic therapies for severe asthma. However, their comparative effectiveness in patients eligible for both treatments remains unclear in routine care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included patients with asthma who were treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. Eligible patients had a blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL (or ≥ 300 cells/μL within the prior year), total Immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥ 30 IU/mL, and sensitization to a perennial inhalant allergen. The primary endpoint was the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for asthma exacerbation during the first year of treatment. Secondary endpoints were IRRs for emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, subgroup IRRs stratified by baseline eosinophil count (< 300 cells/μL vs. ≥ 300 cells/μL), and change in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Poisson regression models were adjusted for BMI, eosinophil count, and prior-year exacerbations; ER and hospitalization models additionally adjusted for prior ER visits and hospitalizations. Follow-up time was accounted for via an offset term.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 49 patients (omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24). Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab (IRR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.69). In the subgroup analyses, this effect was significant in patients with baseline eosinophil counts < 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-0.88) but not in those with baseline eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of ER visits or hospitalizations. The OCS dose was reduced in both groups, with no significant between-group difference in the mean dose reduction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients eligible for both therapies, mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations more than omalizumab in real-world practice. Although ER visits, hospitalizations, and OCS-sparing were comparable, these findings may help inform biologic selection when exacerbation reduction is prioritized but require confirmation in larger multicenter studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51302,"journal":{"name":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13660321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-026-01055-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Omalizumab and mepolizumab are effective biologic therapies for severe asthma. However, their comparative effectiveness in patients eligible for both treatments remains unclear in routine care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in these patients.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with asthma who were treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. Eligible patients had a blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL (or ≥ 300 cells/μL within the prior year), total Immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥ 30 IU/mL, and sensitization to a perennial inhalant allergen. The primary endpoint was the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for asthma exacerbation during the first year of treatment. Secondary endpoints were IRRs for emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, subgroup IRRs stratified by baseline eosinophil count (< 300 cells/μL vs. ≥ 300 cells/μL), and change in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Poisson regression models were adjusted for BMI, eosinophil count, and prior-year exacerbations; ER and hospitalization models additionally adjusted for prior ER visits and hospitalizations. Follow-up time was accounted for via an offset term.

Results: We included 49 patients (omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24). Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab (IRR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.69). In the subgroup analyses, this effect was significant in patients with baseline eosinophil counts < 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-0.88) but not in those with baseline eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of ER visits or hospitalizations. The OCS dose was reduced in both groups, with no significant between-group difference in the mean dose reduction.

Conclusions: In patients eligible for both therapies, mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations more than omalizumab in real-world practice. Although ER visits, hospitalizations, and OCS-sparing were comparable, these findings may help inform biologic selection when exacerbation reduction is prioritized but require confirmation in larger multicenter studies.

mepolizumab和omalizumab在符合条件的患者中的比较有效性:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:Omalizumab和mepolizumab是治疗重度哮喘的有效生物疗法。然而,在常规护理中,它们在符合两种治疗条件的患者中的比较效果尚不清楚。因此,本研究的目的是比较mepolizumab和omalizumab在这些患者中的实际疗效。方法:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了接受奥玛珠单抗或美波珠单抗治疗的哮喘患者。符合条件的患者血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数≥150个细胞/μL(或前一年≥300个细胞/μL),总免疫球蛋白E (IgE)≥30 IU/mL,并且对长年吸入性过敏原敏感。主要终点是治疗第一年哮喘发作的调整发病率比(IRRs)。次要终点是急诊室(ER)就诊和住院的IRRs,按基线嗜酸性粒细胞计数分层的IRRs亚组(结果:我们纳入了49例患者(omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24)。与omalizumab相比,Mepolizumab显著减少哮喘加重(IRR, 0.37; 95%可信区间[CI], 0.19-0.69)。在亚组分析中,这种效果在基线嗜酸性粒细胞计数的患者中是显著的。结论:在符合两种治疗条件的患者中,在现实世界的实践中,mepolizumab比omalizumab更能减少临床显著的恶化。虽然急诊就诊、住院次数和ocs节约具有可比性,但这些发现可能有助于在优先考虑减轻加重的情况下进行生物学选择,但需要在更大的多中心研究中得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
96
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology (AACI), the official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment of allergic and immunologic disease. By offering a high-visibility forum for new insights and discussions, AACI provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy and clinical immunology research and reviews amongst allergists, pulmonologists, immunologists and other physicians, healthcare workers, medical students and the public worldwide. AACI reports on basic research and clinically applied studies in the following areas and other related topics: asthma and occupational lung disease, rhinoconjunctivitis and rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic skin diseases, urticaria and angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, immune deficiency and autoimmunity, T cell and B cell functions, regulatory T cells, natural killer cells, mast cell and eosinophil functions, complement abnormalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书